Repository navigation
Isolate PyModuleDef to Each Interpreter for Extension/Builtin Modules #101758
Description
Activity
Well, this is the main reason why single-phase-init modules don't support multiple interpreters well.
Last time I touched this, it was a Pandora's box of worms, and the best solution we could come up with was PEP 489 itself -- designing multi-phase init, and starting to switch to that.
The situation might be better now, but, tread carefully. And note that lots of extensions might have other process-global state, so switching to the multi-phase init API is often the easy part of making things multi-interpreter-friendly.Reacted by Eric Snow and Gregory P. Smith- added 4 commits that reference this issue
on Feb 14, 2023 Or can we be absolutely sure no stable ABI extension since Python 3.2 could use it?
tl;dr I'm fine with adding it back (and will do so today).
Thanks for bringing this up! In my mind, it's exceptionally unlikely that anyone is using the function, but obviously not impossible. (more explanation below)
Also, I left this footnote on the PR:
I've also removed _PyState_AddModule() from the stable ABI manifest. It was part of "public" API since PEP 3121 was implemented 15 years ago (before a stable ABI existed) but was removed from limited API 6 years ago and then moved to internal API 4 years ago. Presumably it inadvertently slipped into the stable ABI manifest (with PEP 652) due to PC/python3dll.c.
("6 years ago" was in time for the 3.6 release, meaning the function was exposed as technically public API from 3.2 to 3.5.)
Let me also explain why it's unlikely anyone is using the function. It's an undocumented "private" function corresponding to a similarly named documented public function, where the only differences are that
_PyState_AddModule()takes an explicitPyThreadStateargument andPyState_AddModule()does a check for if the module is already added. However, it is certainly possible that someone out there is using it in an extension they built against Python 3.2-3.5. I'm always surprised (but shouldn't be any more) by the otherwise-highly-unlikely (and inadvisable) ways in which users use CPython, especially the C-API. 😄I'll also point out that PEP 384 says "All functions starting with _Py are not available to applications.", which I'm guessing is why @serhiy-storchaka moved
_PyState_AddMethod()to Include/cpython/pystate.h in 2016 (gh-71087). I'm sure this point from PEP 384 has been covered since then (e.g. by the PEP 652 discussion and the recent discussion about "unstable" API) but at the least it is clear what the intention was with the stable ABI.All that said, while there's a limit to how conservative we can be with the stable ABI, from a practicality perspective, in this case there really is no motivation to remove this function from the stable ABI other than to clean up. So I don't mind adding it back. I'll do that today.
Are the
test_impfailures in test_singlephase_variants tests on the Refleaks buildbots related to this work?Reacted by Erlend E. AaslandYeah. The failures should be fixed now though.
To be clear, I've skipped the leaky/broken tests in test_imp. If there are other refleak failures, they should not be related to the work I've been doing.
So I don't mind adding it back. I'll do that today.
Thank you!
Sorry for my terse comments before, I was short on time. I'll add some general thoughts.Let me also explain why it's unlikely anyone is using the function
I do think it's possible that nothing uses this, and maybe we can even prove nothing does, but proving it is harder than keeping the function.
And if we're wrong, we might not hear about it -- some engineer with a proprietary codebase will grumble about Python not keeping promises, and stay on an old CPython version.Anyway, here's a plausible breaking scenario: something like a language binding gets the list of exposed ABI symbols, and re-exports all of them, regardless of whether they're usable. Removing any symbol will break them.
I'll also point out that PEP 384 says "All functions starting with _Py are not available to applications.",
Yeah, but the trouble is that if they were called e.g. by a public macro, they need to stay in the ABI. Who knows how it's been used over the years -- it's possible to find out, but the archaeology is usually more trouble than keeping the function in.
For
_PyState_AddMethodspecifically, it does look like we didn't keep the stable ABI promise in the past. But that's no reason to do it again.there's a limit to how conservative we can be with the stable ABI,
FWIW, in cases like these, turning the function into a stup that always raises is acceptable (as a last resort of course), since that doesn't technically break the ABI. (It would break specific code paths that the new CPython presumably can't support, rather than the entire extension being not importable due to a missing symbol.)
Reacted by Eric SnowDid you meant
_PyState_AddModule? There is no_PyState_AddMethod.Note that the current
_PyState_AddModulediffers from_PyState_AddModulein 3.2.In 3.2:
PyAPI_FUNC(int) _PyState_AddModule(PyObject*, struct PyModuleDef*);Current:
PyAPI_FUNC(int) _PyState_AddModule(PyThreadState*, PyObject*, PyModuleDef*);I am sure
_PyState_AddModulewas not in the stable ABI defined in PEP 384. The fact that its declaration was visible to users was a bug, fixed years ago. And there were no any complains about breaking programs.Reacted by Erlend E. Aasland and Oleg IaryginThere really isn't much we can do to solve this, so I'm closing the issue.
Metadata
Metadata
Assignees
Labels
Projects
- Status
Typically each
PyModuleDeffor a builtin/extension module is a static global variable. Currently it's shared between all interpreters, whereas we are working toward interpreter isolation (for a variety of reasons). Isolating eachPyModuleDefis worth doing, especially if you consider we've already run into problems1 because ofm_copy.The main focus here is on
PyModuleDef.m_base.m_copy2 specifically. It's the state that facilitates importing legacy (single-phase init) extension/builtin modules that do not support repeated initialization3 (likely the vast majority).(expand for more context)
PyModuleDeffor an extension/builtin module is usually stored in a static variable and (with immortal objects, see gh-101755) is mostly immutable. The exception ism_copy, which is problematic in some cases for modules imported in multiple interpreters.Note that
m_copyis only relevant for legacy (single-phase init) modules, whether builtin and an extension, and only if the module does not support repeated initialization3. It is never relevant for multi-phase init (PEP 489) modules.m_copyis only set by_PyImport_FixupExtensionObject()(and thus indirectly_PyImport_FixupBuiltin()and_imp.create_builtin())_PyImport_FixupExtensionObject() is called by_PyImport_LoadDynamicModuleWithSpec()` when a legacy (single-phase init) extension module is loadedm_copyis only used inimport_find_extension(), which is only called by_imp.create_builtin()and_imp.create_dynamic()(via the respective importers)When such a legacy module is imported for the first time,
m_copyis set to a new copy of the just-imported module's__dict__, which is "owned" by the current interpreter (the one importing the module). Whenever the module is loaded again (e.g. reloaded or deleted fromsys.modulesand then imported), a new empty module is created andm_copyis [shallow] copied into that object's__dict__.When
m_copyis originally initialized, normally that will be the first time the module is imported. However, that code can be triggered multiple times for that module if it is imported under a different name (an unlikely case but apparently a real one). In that case them_copyfrom the previous import is replaced with the new one right after it is released (decref'ed). This isn't the ideal approach but it's also been the behavior for quite a while.The tricky problem here is that the same code is triggered for each interpreter that imports the legacy module. Things are fine when a module is imported for the first time in any interpreter. However, currently, any subsequent import of that module in another interpreter will trigger that replacing code. The second interpreter decref's the old
m_copy, but that object is "owned" by the first interpreter. This is a problem1.Furthermore, even if the decref-in-the-wrong-interpreter problem was gone. When
m_copyis copied into the new module's__dict__on subsequent imports, it's only a shallow copy. Thus such a legacy module, imported in other interpreters than the first one, would end up with its__dict__filled with objects not owned by the correct interpreter.Here are some possible approaches to isolating each module's
PyModuleDefto the interpreter that imports it:PyModuleDeffor each interpreter (would_PyRuntimeState.imports.extensionsneed to move to the interpreter?)m_copyfor/on each interpreter_PyImport_FixupExtensionObject()some other way...Linked PRs
Footnotes
see https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/101660#issuecomment-1424507393 ↩ ↩2
We should probably consider isolating
PyModuleDef.m_base.m_index, but for now we simply sync themodules_by_indexlist of each interpreter. (Also,modules_by_indexandm_indexare only used for single-phase init modules.) ↩specifically
def->m_size == -1; multi-phase init modules always havedef->m_size >= 0; single-phase init modules can also have a non-negativem_size↩ ↩2